Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1887-02-26
OLD DOMINION'S REVENGE
THE OCEAN ASSOCIATION LA
BILE FOR DAMAGES.

Denial of a Motion to Discharge From
Arrest Some of the Leading Members
of the Order-Attempts by Labor Or
ganizations to Interfere with tha
Business of Persons or Corporations
Misdemeanors.
NEW YORK, Feb. 25.-Judge Brown to.
day, in the United States Circuit Court,
handed down his decision In the suit OF
the Old Dominion Steamship Company
against John j. McKenna, James E.
Quinn and others Of the Ocean Associa-
tion on motion to have the defendants
discharged from arrest. Suit was
brought 10 recover $4,000 damages, al
legged to have been sustained by the cons
pany through the unlawful action Qfaia7gr
defendants in the recent strikeEI kha
l0ngshoremen, and in their atteI2d to
place boycott on the company in its
business as a common carrier. The de-
endants are out on bail. The defensa
argued that the material facts in t1Rom- :
plaint were furnished on information aEL
belief only, without particulars, and that
the defendants were acting within their
legal rights. Judge Brown reviews the
charge and decides that the material
points are stated positively, and that the
sources OF Information are sufficiently in-
dicated, that the facts stated 10 the COM
plant and afiidavits constitute legal
cause for action against all the defen<
dants and the motion to discharge from
arrest is denied.
THE JUDGES REASONS.
Judge Brown gives the following rca-
sons;
l. The plaintiffs are engaged in the legal
calling OF common carriers, which requires
the employment OF numerous workmen, who
are asserted to have been employed at juss
and satisfactory wages.
z. The defendants were not in the employ
or the company and had no legal Justification
to interfere in mere question of wages. It
Is charged that they melted the employees OF
the company. both In this city and in South
ern ports. TO quit work in body aud to intlict
damage upon the business of the plaintiff un-
I'll the demands OF the defendants should ba
granted, which the plaintiff was under nd
obligation to do. The procurement OF en-
ployes to leave work was to lnfiIct Injury
upon the business of the company, and waa
not justiiable, and thereby in law was mali
cious and illegal interference with the busa
ness of the company, which was actionabe.
THE ACTS MIsDEMEANoRs.
2. After the strike the defendants placed a,
boycott on the business OF the company, inter-
fering With its business as a com BON carrier.
ana tried to deter others from doing business
with the plaintiff to the latter's damage
These acts were not merely illegal. but also
.
by section 1853 of the Penal Code.
In the fourth place, Judge Brown goes
on to say:
Associations have no more right to inflict in-
juries upon Others than individuals have. All
combinations and assoc iations designed to co.
cree workmen to become members of or tn
interfere with, obstruct. vex or annoy them
In working or in obtaining work because they
are not members, or In order to induce them
to become members. or designed to prevens
employers from making just Discrimination
IN the wages paid to the skillful and unskIll-
ful, to the dilgent and lazy, to the efficient
and inefficient, and all associations designed
to Interfere with perfect freedom of employ
ers In the proper no Management and coStrol ot
their lawful business. or to dictate in dhy par
tlcular the terms upon which their business
shall be conducted by means of threats OF iu-
jury or loss by interference with their prop
erty or traffic. or with their lawful emulay-
ment OF any other persons, or desgIS1d Ia
abridge any of these rights, are Illegal COM
binations or associations, ana all acts done in
furtherance of such Intentions, by such means
and accompanied by damage. are actionabie.
There Is no doubt concerning the plaintiffs
legal rights as should debar it from the usual
remedy.